Don's reproduction photo problem.
Moderators: Randy Perry, The Flying Dutchman, Stiltzkin, skezza, Trigger
Don's reproduction photo problem.
It's been said many times if you look closely, at the black and white picture, this must be a reproduction of one of Don's photos of the plane that morning with Randy aboard........but ...in the official report it say's -
"This writer then located an oblong object red and white in color on the Southerly side of the garage approximately two feet from the air conditioner exterior unit located outside of the garage wall. This object appeared to be one of the wing tanks off of the aircraft".
But the aircraft depicted in what may or may not be a reproduction of one of Don's photo's, show's this plane doesn't have wing tip tanks...!!!
The other photo I've included (the color one) is one of the other planes at the ranch air strip that day, and you can see wing tip tanks on this one.
I'm sure, the person who wrote the report must have been familiar with those type of planes, they must have always been flying in the area, so he's either completely wrong about the oblong object being a wing tip tank, although his description is perfect, or we still haven't seen one of Don's photos. Or....the investigation into the crash was very poorly done, and the crash needs re-investigating, and done properly.
"This writer then located an oblong object red and white in color on the Southerly side of the garage approximately two feet from the air conditioner exterior unit located outside of the garage wall. This object appeared to be one of the wing tanks off of the aircraft".
But the aircraft depicted in what may or may not be a reproduction of one of Don's photo's, show's this plane doesn't have wing tip tanks...!!!
The other photo I've included (the color one) is one of the other planes at the ranch air strip that day, and you can see wing tip tanks on this one.
I'm sure, the person who wrote the report must have been familiar with those type of planes, they must have always been flying in the area, so he's either completely wrong about the oblong object being a wing tip tank, although his description is perfect, or we still haven't seen one of Don's photos. Or....the investigation into the crash was very poorly done, and the crash needs re-investigating, and done properly.
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
Reproduction of photo=photocopy As for re investigating the crash-let it go man Plane flying to low apparently Rachel slumped over passenger controls-loss of control of aircraft-wing tips hits bus,plane pinwheels over bus lands on it's back into the garage -3 people died-the end.what else are they going to find out?
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
Yeah and re-open that Elvis case. The real killers are still on the loose. I'm trying not to get porky here but to quote, "But the aircraft depicted in what may or may not be a reproduction of one of Don's photo's, show's this plane doesn't have wing tip tanks." What does that prove? It may or may not be one of Don's photo's?? Could be a random. If the plane really had tip tanks or didn't, what is your point? Am I missing some new info? What is clear and A LOT of people miss this point, Irresponsibility was the main factor in the crash. Planes are meant to fly up in the sky, not hang around 15 feet off the ground for a joke. No joke is worth that. People die every day from irresponsibility. Please, oh why can't it be a heart attack so I can justify this in my head? If it was, the irresponsibility caused the heart attack. Not the other way around...
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
Who said Rachal had a heart attack and slumped over the passenger controls, thats just speculation.....the autopsy found no evidence of a heart attack, and what passenger controls......it was never established if the plane had passenger controls, some did, most didn't.JAY wrote:Reproduction of photo=photocopy As for re investigating the crash-let it go man Plane flying to low apparently Rachel slumped over passenger controls-loss of control of aircraft-wing tips hits bus,plane pinwheels over bus lands on it's back into the garage -3 people died-the end.what else are they going to find out?
As for letting it go......sure, I won't post any other info on the forum if thats people think is best, but I'm not satisfied, that there isn't still someone out there that "could" be partly responsible. Yes I know the pilot was in "control" of the aircraft, but if that plane was stored in a hanger, had wing-tip tank mods, and hadn't been inspected for 12 months preceeding the accident, and did Calhouns brother give the "ok" to Aycock to take it out, then in my mind, it's not really open and shut. The owners brother was there after all.
The original investigation was shoddy at best.
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
This model aircraft was not originally built with wing tip fuel tanks. A modification was available in 1980, from Brittan Industries, Model M668 wing tip fuel tanks and a fuel selector assembly, part number 55001, under Beech Kit 35-668-3 and supplemental type certificate (STC) SA4-1629.hansolo wrote:Yeah and re-open that Elvis case. The real killers are still on the loose. I'm trying not to get porky here but to quote, "But the aircraft depicted in what may or may not be a reproduction of one of Don's photo's, show's this plane doesn't have wing tip tanks." What does that prove? It may or may not be one of Don's photo's?? Could be a random. If the plane really had tip tanks or didn't, what is your point? Am I missing some new info? What is clear and A LOT of people miss this point, Irresponsibility was the main factor in the crash. Planes are meant to fly up in the sky, not hang around 15 feet off the ground for a joke. No joke is worth that. People die every day from irresponsibility. Please, oh why can't it be a heart attack so I can justify this in my head? If it was, the irresponsibility caused the heart attack. Not the other way around...
The owner of the aircraft stated, the aircraft was "stored" in a hanger on the ranch and he "couldn't' remember if it had been inspected in the 12 months preceeding the crash.
So who did the mods, and were they done properly? There is also speculation that Calhouns brother, who was there that day, may have given the "o.k" to Aycock to take the plane out.
A man who Sharon did not know said to her at the time of the crash to "keep my mouth shut, you did not see anything".......was that man Calhoun's brother?
And as I've said before, the original investigation was shoddy at best.
- The Flying Dutchman
- Moderator
- Posts: 3681
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:03 pm
- Location: Gotham City
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
Nope, this is the place for it, it's good trying to get things straight. You made some very valid points already. I read your posts with great interest!rokket wrote:As for letting it go......sure, I won't post any other info on the forum if thats people think is best
btw I didn't know Calhouns brother was there that day? But what I heard is that Aycock took the plane without permission..... Good point too about those 'assumed' double controls in that Bonanza.
The winner of the rat race is still a rat.
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
very interesting thank you for digging up this info rockett much appreciated!!!!!!!
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
The owner of the plane stated that "no one had been given permission to fly the plane". No one had been given permission from HIM....how could they be, he was away on business. That doesn't mean someone else didn't give the o.k.The Flying Dutchman wrote:Nope, this is the place for it, it's good trying to get things straight. You made some very valid points already. I read your posts with great interest!rokket wrote:As for letting it go......sure, I won't post any other info on the forum if thats people think is best
btw I didn't know Calhouns brother was there that day? But what I heard is that Aycock took the plane without permission..... Good point too about those 'assumed' double controls in that Bonanza.
Would you take your friends/boss's car for a spin without asking him? or if he wasn't around, but his brother was, you'd at least ask him, wouldn't you?
By the owner saying, he "can't remember if the plane had had it's annual inspection in the 12 months preceeding the crash", it leads me to believe Calhoun's brother was probably in charge of the aircraft and bus maintenance, as the business owner was, after all, a busy business owner.
If there was a modification to the plane for wing tip tanks, as there seems to have been, had it passed an inspection?
By owner, I mean company owner, the owner of the plane was Mike Parton.
Calhoun owned the house/tour bus/aircraft business, and his brother, it seems, worked for him.
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
Someone may be able to help me understand this,
The Dept. Of Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Center, received the samples to be used for the toxicology report from American Freight on the 22nd March 1982. The toxicology results report is dated, 2nd of August 1982, and was received by the N.T.S.B (National Transport Safety Board) on the 9th August 1982.
The Dept. Of Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Center, received the samples to be used for the toxicology report from American Freight on the 22nd March 1982. The toxicology results report is dated, 2nd of August 1982, and was received by the N.T.S.B (National Transport Safety Board) on the 9th August 1982.
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
JAY wrote:Reproduction of photo=photocopy As for re investigating the crash-let it go man Plane flying to low apparently Rachel slumped over passenger controls-loss of control of aircraft-wing tips hits bus,plane pinwheels over bus lands on it's back into the garage -3 people died-the end.what else are they going to find out?
With all due respect, IMO if the investigation of the crash that took the life of Randy, Rachel and Andrew, was not as thorough as it should have been, then that is a disgrace. Maybe the opinion of "just let it go" is one that has been adopted far too many times over the years.
No, it won't bring them back, we're all aware of that. But that is not the point.
- The Flying Dutchman
- Moderator
- Posts: 3681
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:03 pm
- Location: Gotham City
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
I think most people would.... (lots of questions still to be answered for sure!)rokket wrote:The owner of the plane stated that "no one had been given permission to fly the plane". No one had been given permission from HIM....how could they be, he was away on business. That doesn't mean someone else didn't give the o.k.
Would you take your friends/boss's car for a spin without asking him? or if he wasn't around, but his brother was, you'd at least ask him, wouldn't you?
The winner of the rat race is still a rat.
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... v26vksXN4U
Heres a link to f35 dual controls- As for as finding out why'how,when the accident it's all going to be speculation all/most of the evidence is gone or was destroyed so I can't see what any other info could come forward? Pictures of the bodies? finding out for sure they found Randys hand, that it was his body outside the garage or maybe Randy was flying the plane?? I don't need to know that. The pilot was flying like a idiot on purpose 10 ft off the ground close to buildings trees and a bus.He ran into some kind of trouble(Rachel passing out or his blizzard of ozz 8 track fell on the floor and he was reaching for it and lost control who knows)?
Don't get me wrong I'm all for keeping the forum interesting and your later posts are very interesting and researched well. I am interested in aviation as well and spend alot of time in "small"planes and at the local airport Rokket.I'll ask some of the av mechs about the tanks/retro fit kit
My home actually back yard is a airport for small aircraft I have talked to every pilot I run into and lay the RR crash on them-they all say the same thing"why was he flying that close to the bus?
Again I enjoyed your posts and the info you provided- Good luck with finding more info be sure to post them!-JAY
Heres a link to f35 dual controls- As for as finding out why'how,when the accident it's all going to be speculation all/most of the evidence is gone or was destroyed so I can't see what any other info could come forward? Pictures of the bodies? finding out for sure they found Randys hand, that it was his body outside the garage or maybe Randy was flying the plane?? I don't need to know that. The pilot was flying like a idiot on purpose 10 ft off the ground close to buildings trees and a bus.He ran into some kind of trouble(Rachel passing out or his blizzard of ozz 8 track fell on the floor and he was reaching for it and lost control who knows)?
Don't get me wrong I'm all for keeping the forum interesting and your later posts are very interesting and researched well. I am interested in aviation as well and spend alot of time in "small"planes and at the local airport Rokket.I'll ask some of the av mechs about the tanks/retro fit kit
My home actually back yard is a airport for small aircraft I have talked to every pilot I run into and lay the RR crash on them-they all say the same thing"why was he flying that close to the bus?
Again I enjoyed your posts and the info you provided- Good luck with finding more info be sure to post them!-JAY
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
Im gonna do u guys a big favor.I m going to get to the bottom of all this by enrolling in med school,pilot school,forensic pathology school,conjecture school simultaneously so i can better analyse and come to a definitive conclusion on what REALLY happened...
Your welcome.
Your welcome.
How to tell a real RR signature: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=726&start=120
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
LMAO oth your too much buddy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Don's reproduction photo problem.
Jus tryin ta help y'all out on this internets board.Tito wrote:LMAO oth your too much buddy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im a lover not a hater.
How to tell a real RR signature: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=726&start=120